Standing Committee E

[Mr. Christopher Chopein the Chair]

On resuming—

Jacqui Smith: May I say what a pleasure it is to be back after our snack break? I have a suspicion, however, that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is not yet here, will have fitted in more than a snack.
Moving away from our digestion, I remind hon. Members that before the suspension I was, I hope, reassuring them about the provisions already in the special educational needs code of practice which require a list of schools, including special schools, in an area to be brought to the attention of parents during the statementing process.
I intended to talk about the fact that the guidance to local authorities on the provision of choice advisers already states that such advisers will be expected to have an understanding of special needs policy and provision in the area for children with special educational needs. Advisers will also be expected to draw on the knowledge and expertise of local parent partnership services in providing advice to parents. I hope that my comments reassure hon. Members that we are clear that choice advisers have an important role in respect of children with special educational needs and that we have made that clear in the choice advice guidance.
Amendment No. 192 relates to monitoring and quality assurance of the work of choice advisers. We have already made provision for that through the choice advice support and quality assurance network, which will be operated by the voluntary and community sector. That network is external to and independent of local authorities and will have a key role in ensuring the impartiality of the advice given by choice advisers. It will examine the quality of what is offered.
In addition to that work, we plan to contract for formal external evaluation of choice advice. That evaluation is likely to focus on issues including the effectiveness of choice advice delivery and operations; the effectiveness of our measures to ensure independence of choice advice; the impact of local authority and/or school performance management arrangements on choice advisers; parental perception of the quality of that advice; and the impact of the advice on admissions patterns for disadvantaged children and on social mobility.
With regard to amendment No. 388, a key element of providing choice advisers for parents will be ensuring that the individuals appointed receive full training to enable them to provide the advice that parents need. I can assure the Committee that SEN and disability legislation, along with admissions law, the school admissions code and other equality legislation, will be part of that training. This is a broader requirement than the amendment proposes and will also cover schools’ own descriptions of what they offer contained in the online school profile, their ethos and any special facilities, including those for children with special educational needs and disabled children.
New clause 46 and amendment No. 387 relate to professional standards for teachers. The Secretary of State already has the power to set professional standards for teachers and does so in secondary legislation and associated guidance. There is no need to set out specific standards in primary legislation, but I assure hon. Members that the current standards for teachers are under review. It is proposed that, once revised, they will include a standard that requires teachers to know and comply with current legislation on the well-being of children and young people, a standard that requires teachers to know and understand the role of others when dealing with children who have special educational needs and/or disabilities and a standard that requires teachers to communicate effectively with parents and carers. That provision, too, will be stronger than the amendment, which talks only about people demonstrating
“an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation”.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members on the amendments and that they will not press them.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that response from the Minister and I am reassured by some things. The external evaluation for choice advisers is a useful measure to ensure that the quality of advice being given is good. I am also reassured by what she had to say about the training of choice advisers and by her comments regarding standards for teachers. I understand why they are set out in secondary legislation, but in this Committee we can only table amendments to primary legislation. I was reassured by her mention of the current positions under review, and I was content with what she had to say about the new words concerning professional standards in relation to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
However, I am not yet convinced by the Minister’s response concerning the requirement in amendment No. 47 that choice advisers give full information regarding the provision of special schools available in the geographical area. Committee members have seen too many examples of parents being denied this information. It will send a clear message if we include in the Bill the provisions in amendment No. 47. I was particularly struck by the real-life experience outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). In light of that, and other experiences from outside the House of which I have been made aware, I would like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) to move amendment No. 204, I should apologise to the hon. Member for Bury, North for the fact that amendment No. 448, in his name, has been left off the amendment paper in error. In any event, the amendment has not been selected.

Clause 40

Prohibition on interviews

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in clause 40, page 29, line 4, after ‘school', insert
‘(except a school to which this section does not apply)'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 213, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview', insert ‘or written test'.
Amendment No. 436, in clause 40, page 29, line 5, after ‘interview', insert
‘(whether face to face or by telephone)'.
Amendment No. 214, in clause 40, page 29, line 6, after ‘interview', insert ‘or written test'.
Amendment No. 48, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) If the maintained school is one which has been designated as a school having a religious character in accordance with section 69, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess religious commitment and religious practice.'.
Amendment No. 49, in clause 40, page 29, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview conducted to assess intended compliance with a home school contract.'.
Amendment No. 369, in clause 40, page 29, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2A) If the maintained school is of a religious character and preference is given to applicants for admission to that school on the basis of the religious practice of the pupil, then subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess the suitability of the applicant for such a school.'.
Amendment No. 406, in clause 40, page 29, line 15, at end insert ‘interview,'.
Amendment No. 208, in clause 40, page 29, line 18, at end insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any interview conducted in connection with the admission of pupils to the school for secondary education suitable to the requirements of pupils who are over compulsory school age.'.
Amendment No. 205, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end add—
‘(5) This section does not apply to a foundation, voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled school which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 69 as a school having a religious character.'.
Amendment No. 215, in clause 40, page 29, line 20, at end add—
‘(2) In section 482 (academies) of EA 1996, in subsection (2)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) after paragraph (b) insert “and
(c) does not have admission arrangements which require or authorise any interview with an applicant for admission to the academy or his parents, where the interview is to be taken into account (to any extent) in determining whether the applicant is to be admitted to the academy”.'.
Clause stand part.
New clause 9—Freedom to interview—
‘A maintained school shall have complete freedom to interview candidates for admission at its absolute discretion, including in cases where the interview plays a part in deciding whether the candidate is to be admitted to the school.'.

Edward Leigh: I must admit I am very hurt that the Minister has not seen fit to accept any of my amendments so far. Despite all the plaudits that I have given her, and the advances that I have made to her through my speeches, they have been all cruelly rejected. However, there comes a moment when one gets angry, and I am a bit angry about this aspect of the Bill. It first motivated me to take an interest in the legislation, and I put my concerns directly to the Prime Minister, face to face, in the Liaison Committee.
The reason why I feel angry is no secret. I am interested in faith education—specifically Catholic education, but Anglican education, too—particularly in London, where such schools are oversubscribed. It is no secret that the Prime Minister sent his sons to the London Oratory school, which has always interviewed pupils. I have sent a son there and another of my sons is going there next year. Some people think that Conservative MPs have a go at the Prime Minister over the London Oratory only because they are trying to make a political point. I feel strongly about the school not because I want to make such a point but because it provides a superb ethos, and that is precious.
Presumably, the Prime Minister had to be interviewed to get his children into the school. Having enjoyed the education that it gives, it is wrong that he should now put his name to a Bill that will ban that and other faith schools from interviewing. I feel strongly about the issue and I freely admit that I speak from personal experience. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister or the Minister in their heart of hearts really want this unnecessary clause.
My hon. Friends support the Bill. Some parts of it are really worth while and will provide a small impetus towards getting more choice and diversity. All that is fair enough. However, why does there have to be this mean-minded little clause to ban interviews, just to appease the Bill’s critics? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said many times, the Bill was going to get an enormous majority in any event, so the clause was quite unnecessary.
Perhaps I will be told, “Edward, don’t worry about the banning of interviews; only a few schools interview now.” But why on earth do we have to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Given that only a few of the 3,500 schools interview, do we need the clause? I do not think so. Relatively few schools interview, but I am aware only of faith schools that do so.
Incidentally, the Bill makes it clear that interviews can be held to ascertain a propensity for boarding. I would have thought that a state boarding school, or a state school that takes some boarders, could use that as a device not only to ascertain the aptitude of children in respect of boarding, but—horror of horrors—in a hidden way to select parents who are middle-class or support the ethos of the school. Apparently, interviewing is allowed for some things, but a faith school cannot interview to preserve its ethos.
I have a lot of time for the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and he feels strongly about this issue. He is very knowledgeable and perfectly entitled to his point of view, but I understand that he, along with many others in this House and many in the educational world, is strongly opposed to faith schools. I happen to think that those people are wrong.
There is a bit of a hidden agenda. I do not think that many such people are really opposed to existing faith schools—the very small number of Jewish schools or the long-established Anglican or Roman Catholic schools. Some people who oppose faith schools are opposed really to Muslim schools, not because of nasty, racist views or views against Muslims or any other such thing, but because they are worried that such schools will create a ghetto mentality. They are particularly worried about single-sex Muslim schools, which provide different education for girls and for boys.
We live in a very politically correct society, and although nobody dares admit it, I think that many people opposed to faith schools have that hidden agenda. Others oppose such schools because they believe that they cherry-pick and use the interviews, which are supposed to assess Anglicanism or Catholicity, as a hidden means of selecting middle-class pupils.
I can speak only from personal experience of a Catholic primary school, a Catholic comprehensive school and an Anglican school—Lady Margaret school in London, to which I tried and failed to send a daughter and which also interviewed at that stage. When I went to those schools to be interviewed with my children, it was clear that the questions asked were a genuine attempt to test the commitment, particularly of the child, to the Catholic or Anglican faith. It will be said by the opponents of such interviews that when the headmaster or the deputy head asks a 10-year-old child what he or she understands about Easter, it will be easy—it will happen in a trice—to work out the social background of the child and so on. The opponents of interviews say that they are hidden a means of selecting middle-class parents.
I do not believe that. I genuinely believe that the London Oratory school and others that I have come across are trying in a difficult world to preserve their ethos. That is important. Such schools tend to be oversubscribed. Many parents living in inner-city areas find it quite difficult to gain access to really good education unless they are prepared to pay for a private school—most cannot afford to do so—or unless they get a priest to sign a chit in order to get the child into a faith school.
It is distressing to attend open meetings at such schools as I have done, because one comes to realise that some are oversubscribed by as much as 8:1. Many parents will be bitterly disappointed at not getting their children a place. What can be done by those who run schools that are so oversubscribed? They are comprehensive schools: that is in the statute. They cannot select on ability—we are not going to have that debate again. It is only fair that a Catholic school should give preference to Catholics and an Anglican school should give preference to Anglicans. I presume that the same applies to Jewish schools, although I suspect that the constituency for that faith is much smaller and easier to manage.
If we are going to give preference, how should it be done? What is the best way to do it? The best way is surely to interview. It will be said that interviews cause much stress and difficulty. Frankly, the stress is not due to the interview but to being turned down—often for what are thought to be unfair reasons. It will be said that a form can be filled in by the local priest—I presume that the same applies in the Anglican world—and that the form is supposed to determine one’s commitment. If a Catholic school is oversubscribed by 8:1 or 7:1, or even 6:1, we are surely agreed that it should give preference to people who are strongly committed to their faith. That is a given, but how does one determine it?
I have seen the form. I also know that some London parishes are booming because of the great influx of people from the Philippines, from Poland and from other areas. In some parishes in the outer areas of inner London, 2,000 or 3,000 people are coming to services on Sunday mornings. How can the parish priest possibly know whether or not someone is a keen Catholic? We all know what goes on. Because parents are so desperate to get their children into the few faith schools, they will turn up at church a few times, if possible make themselves known to the parish priest and get the priest to sign the form because they want their child to get into a faith school—all because the other schools are rubbish. It is virtually impossible for many priests to know who is in their parish and to give a proper rÃ(c)sumÃ(c) of their faith, so a lot of cheatinggoes on.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that because lots of new Catholics are arriving from Poland and the Philippines, particularly in the capital, interviewing should remain. How does he think someone newly arrived from Poland without much English would fare in an oral interview?

Edward Leigh: That is a fair point. Schools should be very careful in how they handle the situation, but I think that they are experienced. My impression is that they make no attempt to disadvantage people because of difficulties with language. A genuine attempt is being made to conduct the interviews in an understanding way. They could be done through interpreters or by using help. They are not brutal occasions. They are not like House of Commons Committees; they are not confrontational. The people involved are experienced in posing questions. Many people can be given help. What the Minister says is not necessarily an argument against interviews.
The trouble with not having interviews and basing everything on a form is that it is difficult to obtain an accurate answer. A Catholic priest told me that priests do not want to become spiritual policeman. They do not become priests—Anglican or Catholic—to go through this heartrending business of having to make a decision. They are faced with 10, 15 or 20 forms that John McIntosh from the London Oratory school, or the head teacher from another school, has demanded. They do not want to have to say whether X is a good Catholic. Such a situation is ridiculous. It is not what those religions are about. They should be welcoming to everybody. Priests want this burden placed on the school and not on them.

Sarah Teather: Surely the Catholic priest should simply be ticking a box to say whether someone is a practising Catholic and not determining the extent to which someone has a religious commitment.

Edward Leigh: I agree that that is supposed to be the situation. However, it is difficult for someone running one of the huge parishes in London to say with any certain knowledge whether or not someone is a practising Catholic. This the last thing that a priest wants to do; they do not want to have to tick a box that could affect somebody’s entire future by saying that he or she turns up every Sunday. Such a situation would be ridiculous. They should not be required to do that, because it is unfair on them.
I go to my local parish in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire. My constituency does not have any Catholic schools but there is a Catholic primary school in Brigg and a Catholic secondary school in Lincoln. The issue is different there. Those schools are not oversubscribed; the parishes are small and stable; and people are well known in the area. There is not a great mobility of population. The system works there, but things are much more difficult in London. It is wrong to put priests in this invidious position.
Why is the clause included? Why are interviews being banned?

David Chaytor: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s previous question the fact that the Roman Catholic Church and the diocesan authorities have argued, along with the Government, that interviews should not be part of the admissions process?

Edward Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point because I was coming to it. I took John McIntosh, the headmaster of the London Oratory school, to see Cardinal Murphy Cormac-O’Connor about this precise point. The hon. Gentleman might not agree with this, but the Catholic Church is terrified of the potential attack on faith schools and knows that the issue is controversial. I freely admit that it is controversial, because people get very upset when they are turned down.
We all know people who have tried to get into certain schools and who have come knocking on our door. Loads of complaints are received about various Catholic schools that people have not got into. They complain to the hierarchy, for which it is an unwanted hassle. By the way, I think that the hassle will get even worse once everyone has to do things by a form because there will be nothing then between the Church and complainants. The Church is worried about this matter. Things have been admitted to me off the record. People do not want to say this publicly. They say, “Let us throw this out and give this away so that there will be no further attacks.”
I freely accept a point that goes against me: there are people in the Catholic hierarchy who are opposed to interviews, which are controversial in the Catholic Church, as they are anywhere else. Just because people are Catholics or Anglicans does not mean that they cannot take a political point of view. Some of them oppose interviews.
The hon. Gentleman should not accept that there is a universal view in the hierarchy, in the Catholic Education Service and among Catholic schools that interviews are bad. Most Catholic schools used to interview. Relentless pressure has been put on them to stop it. One by one they have given up the battle, and only a few are left. My understanding, from those people whom I have talked to, is that that was not a right that they wanted to give up. The change has been gradually forced upon them. Few schools now interview. I return to the point: a legal case has been fought over the past year and the London Oratory has won its battle. Why, if it is such a tiny problem, do we need the clause?
In summary, this goes back to my belief that it is fundamentally wrong to lay down in statute that schools should proceed in a certain way. The Minister constantly says, “We do not want schools to select pupils; we want parents to select schools.” That works in many parts of the country but in some parts of the country—particularly in the capital but maybe in other areas where schools are oversubscribed—it does not. Where a school is oversubscribed and its primary ethos is based on its faith it should be allowed, if it wants, to interview. I am not forcing it to do so. If a school wanted to give up interviewing it could have done so years ago. Some schools are presumably quite happy not to interview. All I am saying is that if they feel from their local knowledge and the way they run their school that they want to interview, they should. My amendment puts back into the Bill their right to interview.

David Chaytor: I shall resist the temptation to be drawn into a debate about the merits or otherwise of the admission practices of faith schools. I am sure that the Whip will be delighted to hear that. However, it may be a subject to which we return on Report. I can recall an interesting discussion with the hon. Gentleman after the Education Act 2002, which included a significant amendment on faith schools. I am sure that many such issues will return on Report.
I want to speak to amendments Nos. 213 to 215, which are simple and straightforward. Amendment No. 215 simply proposes that academies should be brought into the general prohibition on interviewing. The reason why it is important to do so follows the arguments that we have already had about academies and why they should be properly part of the local family of schools, and be required to conform to the practices to which neighbouring schools must conform.
The amendment also arises from the use in some academies of what are called structured discussions. I am not sure whether the term “structured discussions” appears in the academies’ agreement with the Department, nor am I sure exactly how an interview differs from a structured discussion. I suspect that the relationship is similar to that between selection by ability and by aptitude. I do not want to reopen that debate at this point, but it seems to me fair and reasonable that the prohibition on interview should apply equally to academies.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 would include the term “or written test” after interviews. That is important because a number of schools still use written tests. Clearly, the use of written tests as a supplementary admissions procedure is a form of quasi-11-plus selection. It is permitted and not explicitly prohibited, and it can take a variety of different forms, from informally asking students to write about their family background and summer holidays to more sophisticated written tests that fall short of an explicit test of academic ability.
If the Committee will indulge me for a moment, I will quote from the admissions policy of one school. I will not name the school because it would be invidious to name individual schools as part of the Committee’s debates, but the policy will highlight the way in which written tests are used. The school is nominally non-selective, but it is a faith school.
It spells out the requirements for submission of a successful application by saying, “Parents and guardians are reminded they must do the following five things if their applications are to be considered properly. First, come to an open session.” The open sessions are on Wednesday evening, Thursday afternoon or Thursday lunchtime. Clearly, that limits the number of parents who are available to go to an open session—and at is at the open session where the admissions prospectus is available and where information on the school is given by the teaching staff.
“Secondly,” they are told, “collect a prospectus from the school and return it to the school by the date set by the LEA.” Fine: we accept that. “Thirdly, bring the child for the assessment test on a Saturday morning. Fourthly, telephone the school to check that the primary school reference has been received and that it has been used on the correct form.”
These details might have been more relevant to the previous set of amendments on the various forms of covert admissions procedure that some schools use, but I mention it now because it highlights the use of the written assessment test—not any old written assessment test, but one that takes place only on a Saturday morning at a specific time. This represents an aggregate set of procedures each of which is designed to keep out certain kinds of parent—those who do not have resources or time, an understanding of the process or a child with the relevant level of academic ability to pass the written assessment test.
Given the arguments that the Government have rightly advanced in their determination to press forward with the prohibition of interviews—a determination on which they are to be congratulated—it seems to me entirely logical to match that prohibition with a prohibition on written tests, and the skeletal code of practice on admissions that was circulated last week makes no reference to that.

John Hayes: The clause, like its two predecessors, adds little to the spirit or practice of the proposed legislation. It should not be there, and it is only there because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has suggested—the Government felt they needed to placate their critics on the left. We did not need the stuff on selection, which was unwarranted; we did not need the stuff on admissions, which was unwanted; and we do not need this either. The Committee will understand that Conservative Members are extremely sceptical about the clause and we have proposed to amend it accordingly.
The hon. Member for Bury, North—lest I stray—will no doubt tell me that I am concentrating on intake. He said that last time I spoke, many hours ago, when I spent the whole time talking about the difference that schools could make. I spoke about the difference that they could make to social mobility and the difference that they could make to academic performance, yet he told me that I was preoccupied by intake. So, I repeat, I am interested in the difference that schools can make. We have already heard that things such as the support of parents, the relationship between home and school and the ethos of schools matter. They matter because they are likely to have an impact on the chances of the children who attend schools.
It is in that spirit that we have tabled amendment No. 48, which would allow faith schools to continue to interview to assess religious commitment and practice; amendment No. 49, which would enable any interview conducted to assess intended compliance with a home school contract; amendment No. 406, which would allow interviews as well as audition or other oral or practical test to determine aptitude; and amendment No. 208, which would ensure that a ban on interview did not apply to pupils who were over compulsory school age.
The regulatory impact assessment states that
“The Government believes that interviewing is subjective and should play no part in the admissions process. This position is reflected in the School Admissions Code of Practice. Although few schools interview, the Government wishes to legally prohibit the use of interviewing except where it is necessary to assess a child’s suitability”
for a state boarding place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, the Government make a great deal of something that few schools do.
My reasoning that the clause is unnecessary is supported by my hon. Friend’s remarks that this matter affects very few schools. Like him, I am surprised that the Minister has failed to grasp his point or to succumb to his overtures. I do not mean to be ungallant, but that has more to do with her taste than his charm. The case that my hon. Friend makes respecting faith schools seems strong. It is supported by no less a personage than the Archbishop of Canterbury, who says that
“faith schools have a generally excellent academic record”,
Which he adds can lead to claims that they are selecting the brightest children, particularly because they often interview parents to assess their religious commitment. He describes such claims as “a persistent misrepresentation”. Like his predecessor, he called for national criteria for all faith schools, allowing for standardisation of admission criteria to deal with such misinformation about their intentions.
That is not just the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury—as though he were not a high enough authority. It is that of—

Phil Hope: The Pope.

John Hayes: I shall come to the highest of all authorities later. It is the view of the Prime Minister himself, who chose to send his child to an interview at the school already mentioned by my hon. Friend, who has the advantage of having so many children that he can speak with authority about a range of schools. The Prime Minister persuaded the Secretary of State to intervene to defend the right of the Oratory school to continue to interview. The Independent reported last year:
“The school selected by Tony Blair for his three older children has been given the green light to carry on ‘selecting’ pupils by interview in a ruling from his Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly.”
Inevitably, the Secretary of State was accused of hypocrisy. It turned out that a nearby school, the Gunnersbury Roman Catholic school in Hounslow, west London, was not allowed to continue interviewing. Almost simultaneously, it asked for the same permission but it was not granted the same largesse. Perhaps it is a pity that the Prime Minister does not have as many children as my hon. Friend. Then many schools might be able to continue that good practice.
We need to be clear that interviews for faith schools are supported by the people I mentioned because they are a useful means by which those schools can assess children and, perhaps more importantly, parents. At the same time, they are an important opportunity for parents to assess the school. Why should parents not go along to an interview and get the measure of a school?

Edward Leigh: What is to stop some pushy middle-class parent effectively interviewing the headmaster, saying, “My little Johnny has applied to this school, and I would like to be shown around the school and to meet you, Mr. Head Teacher,” and charming him to make their mark? Would that not be even more unfair? There is nothing to prevent that from happening, is there?

John Hayes: No. I suppose that if a parent demanded the right to interview the head, it would be an odd head who did not grant it. I was speaking just this morning to the head teacher of a school in my constituency. When I ran into him he said, “I have a meeting with a parent who wants to interrogate me about some aspect of the school. It’s not a meeting I am looking forward to.” I guess that, as a good headmaster, he felt he had to conduct the meeting.

Meg Hillier: I feel that I must cut through some of the drivel coming from the Opposition Benches. In the fantasy world in which the hon. Gentlemen are living, they seem to have forgotten that when children apply for a school, they have to go through an admissions process run by the education authority that is more or less blind, after which they are allocated to a school. At that point, or even before, the parents might wish to meet the head teacher, but the head teacher does not choose the pupils. Pupils are placed in a school by the open allocations process.

John Hayes: It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that there should be a process at the Oratory and other such schools that allows them to interview parents and children. Judging by the popularity and results of that particular school, I do not think that that practice has gone wrong, and clearly it is a practice that is endorsed by the hon. Lady’s leader, the Prime Minister, who not only sent his children there but I presume was happy with the interviewing process that it continues to carry out. Presumably, he would not have asked the Secretary of State to intervene in order to allow it to continue to interview if he had not been happy.

Edward Leigh: I am sorry, but we must correct the drivel—if that is a parliamentary phrase—that is being uttered on the Government Benches. If the suggestion is that somehow it is completely open to local authorities in London to distribute children around schools, it is not true. Ultimately, under the new admissions criteria and rules that have been introduced in the last couple of years, schools in London can select the pupils they want. That is the truth. That is not some cosy fantasy world but the real world, in which some schools are hugely oversubscribed.

John Hayes: The statement about making interviews illegal raises important questions. If interviews are necessary to assess a child’s suitability for boarding provision, which the Bill acknowledges—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

John Hayes: The proposal to make interviews illegal raises several questions. If interviews are necessary to assess a child’s suitability for boarding provision, why are they not suitable to determine aptitude or religious conviction? If interviews are subjective, why are they suitable for selection in any instance? Will the Government continue to use interviews when recruiting civil servants? Are not interviews part of the life experience of most of us, and should not parents have the opportunity in the form of an interview of meeting those who work at the school? If the Government are opposed to interviews per se, should not they ban interviews for all pupils?
John McIntosh, the head master of the Oratory school, argues that interviews are necessary to determine the commitment of parents to the school’s religious ethos. Surely it is nonsense that schools continue to audition and test potential pupils to select up to 10 per cent. on aptitude, but not to interview them. What is the difference between an audition and an interview in terms of subjectivity? Nothing can be more subjective than an audition or an oral test, yet the Government accept that they are desirable for certain pupils. Why is one way of determining an aptitude okay and another not?
Does the clause mean that interviewers will not be allowed to converse with candidates during an audition? Will there be a vow of silence during oral tests, where no questions are asked by the interviewer and no questions permitted from the child being assessed? The Minister should answer those questions when she sums up the debate.
If the objective of the Bill is to increase school autonomy, the Government surely must agree that a school should be completely in control of discipline. That is why our amendment on home-school contracts would make them enforceable. If parents and children do not sign up to a code of behaviour and stick to it, it is surely inappropriate for those children to attend the school. If schools can use interviews to determine suitability for boarding, why can they not use interviews to determine whether a home-school contract will be adhered to?
Paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper states:
“Home-school agreements can be a powerful tool in making clear to parents what they can expect from their child’s school—particularly when they join a new school—and also setting out parents’ own responsibilities in supporting the school.”
Paragraph 5.14 states:
“Home-school agreements have been a requirement since 1999, but many schools have not yet exploited their potential. We therefore plan to update and relaunch guidance on home-school agreements to ensure that all schools are aware of the potential benefits and to provide more information about good practice. We want to learn more about where home-school agreements work best and to enable schools to exploit the energy and commitment of parents. We will set a clear expectation that schools should keep agreements both updated and practical.”
In respect of the example of home-school agreements at Oulton Broad primary school in Suffolk, it is stated in the box at the top of page 68 of the White Paper:
“The home-school agreement is displayed in the school’s entrance hall, and sets out clearly the expectation that both the school and the family will play their part in the child’s education. The school consults parents about reviewing the agreement every three years, and it is used in day-to-day conversations, where necessary, with parents to clarify responsibilities, and emphasise the role that both sides play.”
Therefore, a school can have day-to-day conversations with parents and it can use those conversations to update its policy and to amend what it does, but it cannot do that in through the medium of an interview when the parents’ children join the school. If a school is expected to have a conversation with parents about the home-school agreement agreement, why can it not interview to ensure compliance as part of admission?

Meg Hillier: Let me put a situation to the hon. Gentleman—not a hypothetical situation, but one that is very real in my constituency. A child’s parents may have come from another culture: not only do they not speak English, but they are not literate in their own mother tongue. During the primary school years, the child may have often been taken back home to visit the family, which has resulted in him or her having been absent from their primary school at different times. How would those parents fare at a secondary school interview? Would it be fair to the child of those parents to be discriminated against because the parent, regardless of how ambitious they might be for their child, could not play the interview system as well as an articulate parent?

John Hayes: One suspects that a good school, sensitive to such circumstances, would be able to adapt its process to deal with that reality just as easily in respect of an interview—indeed, I would argue more easily—than it would in respect of an oral test or audition. I do not underestimate the good will and ingenuity of governors, head teachers and teachers in dealing with precisely the kinds of challenges the hon. Lady describes. We are not suggesting that every school must interview, or prescribing the nature of that process.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman may feel some impatience at my intervening again, but I just wish to reiterate that the oral test that he talks about is of the child, whereas the interview is of the parent. That is an important difference.

John Hayes: The nature of the oral test or audition will depend on what the school is looking to discover. We know that the Government are committed to developing and delivering specialisms for schools; to enable them to select up to 10 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude, a range of measures to assess aptitude will be put in place. I should have thought it right that schools take account of the circumstances of children who might have a particular aptitude but who fall into the categories the hon. Lady describes, and nothing in our amendment would be injurious to schools’ efforts to achieve that aim. I do not share her fears because I trust teachers, governors and head teachers to implement the measures in a way that is both fair and practical.
While we are on the subject of tests for aptitude and ability, it is perhaps worth looking again at the Government’s position, which, I suggest, is untenable. Earlier in our consideration the Minister said that she was happy with tests for aptitude in some subjects but not in others: she said that it was perfectly permissible to test a child’s aptitude for languages, for example. She said that one would be looking for potential rather than proven ability. I refer the Committee in that context to the Education and Skills Committee report of 2003, which said:
“We are not satisfied that any meaningful distinction between aptitude and ability has been made and we have found no justification for any reliance on the distinction between them.”
The hon. Member for Brent, East has mentionedDr. Philip Hunter, the chief schools adjudicator. When asked whether it was possible to distinguish between tests for ability and tests for aptitude and whether one could accurately predict future levels of attainment, he said no, he was not clear about that. He does not believe that that can be done—or at least he did not believe it when interviewed by the Select Committee in its next study of the matter, in 2004.
The Select Committee went on to say:
“As the Department is unable to support its policy on selection by aptitude with evidence as to its efficacy and is unwilling to commission research on the subject, it is difficult to understand why the practice should be allowed to continue.”
Nevertheless, the Government are happy to continue to support the principle of oral tests and auditions to assess aptitude but, paradoxically, they are unhappy with interviews to gauge the suitability of a child and the commitment of his or her parents to a particular school—notably to faith schools, but the same might apply to other schools too.
The simple truth is that interviews are not widely used, but where they are used, those engaged in the process believe that they are a helpful tool. The clause is unwarranted, unwanted and unnecessary. Those schools that interview should be allowed to continue to do so. I suspect that the provisions have more to do with dogma than any educational advantage that they might bring. We shall of course wait to hear what the Minister says, but unless she can be rather more convincing than she was about selection and admissions, we will press the amendments. We are not satisfied that the Government have made a persuasive case on interviews. I commend our amendments and new clause to the Committee.

Sarah Teather: I would like to place on record the fact we think that the clause is helpful, for precisely the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He was trying to imply that an interview process would be like a job interview, but we are not talking about a job interview. Such interviews are not necessary because there is no need for an interview to meet the criteria that are allowed under the admissions code. It is perfectly possible to meet those criteria without having an interview. The only reason one would want an interview would be to obtain information that is not allowed under the admissions code. Having interviews therefore seems to make no sense.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that jobs interviews are used to choose future employees, whereas most of us are very much against schools choosing pupils?

Sarah Teather: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings makes a reasonable point when he notes the apparent disparity between auditioning for musical ability and testing for an aptitude for languages, and the other rulings on interviewing. However, I have already placed on record my view about the difference between aptitude and ability and the fact that it is difficult to test, so I shall not repeat it.
We tabled amendment No. 436 before seeing the draft code, so I shall make some brief remarks about it and we will not press it to a Division. It is intended to probe some of the definitions relating to interviewing. I shall also make brief remarks on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, and the Conservatives’ amendment No. 429.
The term “interview” is generally thought to mean a formal appointment, but most of the concerns that hon. Members have raised have been about more informal contact. The hon. Member for Bury, North went through the admissions policies for a London school, which displayed clearly the extent of informal contact that can take place between a school and a family prior to the admissions process. Such issues cause particular concern.
Our aim in tabling the amendment is not to monitor every phone call between a school and a family. We simply want to place on record the fact that informal contact can be obtained just as easily on the telephone as in person. As we have seen from the example raised earlier, there could be many telephone conversations between a school and a parent to check that every stage of the admission application process is in place. During those conversations, all sorts of other information could be gained.
I have raised my concerns about interviewing to test religious commitment, and it is not clear to me how or why we would want to do that. What will we be trying to test? The hon. Member for Gainsborough talked about questioning a child on their knowledge of Easter and holy week, but the test is not for a celibate vocation to the priesthood or to tell whether a child understands the catechism well enough to take their first communion. It is simply about going to a school, and such an interview seems entirely inappropriate. I cannot see why it is not possible simply to append a certificate to say that a child has been baptised, or an indication from the local priest that a child seeking to go into a secondary school has taken his first communion. If a school is greatly oversubscribed, just how committed will we ask families to be? How will we test that commitment? Will there be a requirement to be entirely dogmatic about all aspects of the catechism, or will we allow the more liberal approach to faith to which most practising Catholics in this country adhere? That is probably as much as I can say without being excommunicated.
I support amendment No. 215 and the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bury, North on written tests. As I stated earlier, we are unhappy with amendment No. 49 and the requirement suggested by the Conservatives that schools should use home-school contracts as part of the admissions process. Such contracts should be used as a tool to work with families, not as a blanket policy. I can see that there may be some situations in which, for instance, a child has been excluded from a number of schools, and a contract prior to admittance to another school would be useful. However, it should always be used on an individual basis. Using it as a blanket policy would be highly discriminatory, often against the very young people who most need support, and is likely to be extremely unhelpful. We have a right of access to free education for all, and making that conditional upon behaviour that has not even occurred would be totally contrary to our principles.

Nick Gibb: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather: No, I have finished, so I shall sit down.

Christopher Chope: I call the Minister. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Jacqui Smith: Thank you. I assure hon. Members that this is going to be good.

Jonathan R Shaw: You always say that.

Jacqui Smith: And I always deliver.
As we have heard, the clause prohibits schools from interviewing parents or children as a means of determining admissions. I do not intend to go into detail on why we believe that that is right, except in response to some of the amendments. We have discussed the need to ensure an objective, transparent admissions framework under which there is fair access; that is in itself a sufficient argument against a process of interviewing that is none of those things and that can be conflated very easily into admitting children to school on the basis of their ability, their family background, their articulacy, or a range of other factors that really should not be part of a school’s admissions criteria.
Amendments Nos. 204, 48, 208, 205, 369 and 406 would make exceptions to clause 40, most notably in the case of faith schools but also for entry to sixth form and to determine applicants’ aptitude for particular subjects. New clause 9 proposes that there be no restrictions whatever on the processes used to admit children to a school. It is the old free-for-all proposed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. He can be as nice as he likes to me, but I am afraid that he will not persuade me that that is a good way to ensure fair access to schools for our children.
Permitting faith schools or others to conduct admission interviews, as a small minority still do, is something that the Government and the main faith groups oppose as potentially unfair to parents and children. Most faith schools undoubtedly adopt transparent admission criteria and practices that are easy for parents to understand, but there is clear evidence that some do not and that interviews have been used as a justification for a complex set of admission criteria that can be difficult for some parents to understand. Not only do those interviews discriminate in terms of the children admitted once they have applied to a school, but they are also likely to impact on who is willing to apply in the first place.
I do not agree with the argument that it is necessary for schools to interview in order to determine faith adherence, and neither do the faith groups. They agree that a priest, a rabbi or an imam’s reference should be sufficient to determine whether an applicant should have any priority under its faith criteria; a Christian school might, say, look at baptismal records as an alternative. Furthermore, our experience has shown that a number of faith schools that use interviews do so to determine who, in their judgment, is the most religious among the applicants or has the greatest degree of faith. It is difficult to make a tangible and objective assessment of such things. Interviews fail that test of transparency and objectivity and we therefore think that they have no place. We are supported in that view by the Church of England Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service, both of which support us in outlawing interviews. We are also supported by the Education and Skills Committee on that point.
I must say that the case that the hon. Member for Gainsborough was making—that somehow or other the Government had browbeaten the Churches into giving that support—was frankly ludicrous. It was not the Government who, on 7 February 2006, persuaded the Church of England Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service to write an open letter to the BBC, which stated:
“Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have pressed government over the past few years to outlaw interviews for the selection of pupils for Church schools.”
That could not be much clearer.
Amendment No. 406 calls for an exception to the ban on interviewing so that admission authorities can interview candidates who are applying for admission on the basis of their aptitude for a particular subject. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not intend to reiterate the distinction between ability and aptitude, which I believe I clarified this morning, but it is clear that interviews tend to rely on the ability of the child to articulate, rather demonstrate their aptitude in an objective way. They are more a test of ability than of aptitude. If a school has a specialism in a particular subject and is selecting on the basis of an aptitude for that subject, it is reasonable to expect it to have an objective way of assessing applicants’ aptitude. I do not believe that subjective interviews would fulfil that purpose. Such an assessment would, of course, have to be related to aptitude, which is why we allow auditions or other oral and practical tests. Extending that to allow more general interviewing would lead inevitably to selection by ability or other factors unrelated to aptitude.
In response to one of the points made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, of course there would be discussion during the course of an audition, but it is clear that that discussion should not go beyond the aptitude that is being tested. Similarly, we do not think that it is necessary for schools to interview prospective candidates for entry to sixth form, as proposed by amendment No. 208. The school admissions code states clearly that pupils should not be interviewed for entry to year 12, and the use of minimum attainment requirements at GCSE level and ordinary oversubscription criteria should be more than adequate to allocate sixth-form places.

John Hayes: Would the right hon. Lady regard an audition or an oral test as subjective? I am interested to know where she sees an oral test applying.

Jacqui Smith: No, as I suggested earlier, there is evidence to support the ability to test aptitude for modern languages through an oral test that might involve a child recognising principles in a language other than his or her own. Those tests tend not only to be more objective, but are based specifically on aptitude within the limited number of subjects for which selection on that basis is allowed. They do not veer into areas of ability, such as the ability of the child to articulate, and the range of other issues that can be brought into an interview.
Amendment No. 215 seeks to prevent academies from interviewing candidates for admission. I must reiterate that academies are required by law to cater for children of all abilities. As with other maintained schools, they are required to act in accordance with the school admissions code and to comply with admissions laws by virtue of their funding agreements. This is a contract between the Secretary of State and the academies trust. They are not allowed to interview parents or pupils, even if it is described as a structured discussion or otherwise, or to introduce selection by ability, other than by fair banding. This is consistent with other types of schools.
City technical colleges have used some of the structured discussions that the hon. Gentleman described. However, we are now in the position where all but two CTCs are becoming academies and will be covered, therefore, by the need to comply with admissions arrangements in the way that I have described for academies.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 seek to prohibit the setting of written tests in addition to the outlawing of interviews. The first problem is that as we discussed earlier, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 means that existing fully or partially selective arrangements remain in place. Those grammar and other selective schools that remain have to have an objective means of allocating their places, and the setting of written tests is, at least, a fair and equal way of doing so in those circumstances. However, I recognise, particularly given the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North gave, that despite the fact that the amendment would impact on that, he was not referring to those particular circumstances. I hope that I will reassure him in a minute.

John Hayes: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady again but I want to be absolutely clear. Why is a written test or an interview more subjective than an audition? Let us for a moment buy the right hon. Lady’s argument that there is an innate propensity in children: an inner capacity to learn languages. Why is an audition more or less subjective in her terms than an interview or a written test?

Jacqui Smith: Actually, my argument was that an audition is an appropriate way to test aptitude for the ability to gain from a musical education in a specialist school. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that he wants to extend selection on the basis of ability and he wants to be able to test and interview for that. That is where we disagree.
I was about to address the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North concerning use of a written assessment test that did not fulfil those criteria. My view is very clear, as is the view taken in the code: unless such a written test is for banding arrangements it is not appropriate to use it in the way that he described. I can assure my hon. Friend that although such use is not mentioned by the existing code, the new code will make it clear that it is prohibited. Given what he said about the other types of activities that he described, I am keen to ensure that they too are ruled out by the new code. We shall cover that as the code develops from a skeleton to a fully-fleshed body of provisions.
I also share the concern that the hon. Member for Brent, East has expressed by tabling amendment No. 436. Any form of interviewing—face to face or by telephone—should be ruled out. I believe that in fact the clause already prevents admissions arrangements from including the use of interviews, but I am willing to clarify the wording of the code so that any form of interview, including those conducted by phone, is caught by the provisions in the clause.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to make the signing of a home-school agreement a part of school admissions arrangements. The Government are extremely positive, as is the skeleton code, about the contribution that home-school agreements can make—it was the School Standards and Framework Act that made home-school agreements compulsory for all schools. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, we have undertaken to revitalise and review their use, and we shall do that, but we do not believe that the willingness of parents to sign a home-school agreement should determine whether a child gets a place at a school. That would be a fundamentally different purpose for home-school agreements. They are not contracts in a legal sense; they are statements of shared objectives between home and school, setting out the expectations and responsibilities of each party.
I do not think that school admission should be contingent on promises of good behaviour or on judgments about past behaviour, although that is not to say that parents do not have a fundamental and important responsibility to ensure their children’s good behaviour at school, and we shall have an opportunity when we reach part 7 of the Bill to discuss our proposed strengthening of provisions relating to parenting contracts and parenting orders to ensure that that responsibility is absolutely clear.

Nick Gibb: For what reasons might a parent refuse to sign a home-school contract?

Jacqui Smith: There might be a range of reasons why they may refuse, although I hope that they would not refuse, and I would expect them always to sign. My argument is that it would give a different function to home-school agreements if they were made part of admissions arrangements. My objective for such agreements is to build an understanding of the responsibilities that are shared between parents and schools, whereas the hon. Gentleman’s objective is to reintroduce a method of selection by the back door.

Nick Gibb: That is simply not true, and I do not understand why insistence on signing of a home-school contract before admission of a child is any more draconian than parenting orders or the range of legislation that the Minister wants to introduce to enforce proper parental responsibility. The measure would be far less draconian and I see no reason why parents should not be happy to sign such contracts.

Jacqui Smith: I quite agree that parents should be happy to sign home-school agreements, but they should be happy to sign them on the basis that signing is a matter of clarifying responsibilities and building engagement between home and school, not about reintroducing a set of admission criteria. Those are two completely separate purposes.
We encourage schools to meet parents to discuss home-school agreements, but that does not mean that the discussion should become a surrogate interview to determine admission. It should be an opportunity to discuss the school’s policies and the role of parents in supporting the child as a member of that school.
Although I am extremely supportive, having introduced home-school agreements, I do not agree that they should be translated into a form of selection in admissions criteria, as Opposition Members want them to be. Given my explanation and arguments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East said from a sedentary position, “What are we voting on?” We were voting on the amendment proposed, amendment No. 204, the lead amendment in the group.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Restrictions on alteration of admissions arrangements

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in clause 41, page 29, line 25, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 89 of SSFA 1998 (procedure for determining admissions arrangements) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The requirement to consult under subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply where an admissions authority, prior to determining its admission arrangements, decides to make no substantive alterations to its admissions arrangements.”.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 50, in clause 41, page 30, line 2, leave out ‘a prescribed number of' and insert ‘the two'.
Amendment No. 51, in clause 41, page 31, line 2, leave out ‘prescribed number of' and insert ‘the two'.
Clause stand part.
New clause 10—Alteration of Admission Arrangements—
‘(1) A maintained school shall have complete freedom to alter its admission arrangements as it sees fit.
(2) Section 89 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

John Hayes: I know that the Committee is keen to make progress. The hon. Member for Brent, East has complained that on occasions, its members have been loquacious—
Mr. Chaytorindicated assent.

John Hayes: And none more so than the hon. Gentleman. So I shall speak briefly.
Clause 41 locks schools into a three-year contract with their chosen admissions system. Two years would be more flexible, allowing schools to tailor their admissions system over a reduced period. The White Paper, which has become something of a bible for Opposition Members, says:
“No one approach towards admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to ensure that all self-governing schools (Foundation, voluntary aided and Trust)”—
for that is what they were then going to be called—
“are free to use the approach to fair admissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code. We want them to be able to do so without having to go through a complex and bureaucratic process.”
We, too, want the emphasis to be with the schools. The schools are closest to the needs of the children and, therefore, most able to assess the impact of their admissions arrangements. We feel that the greater flexibility offered in our amendments would be of immense benefit to schools and so improve the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: What a pleasant surprise that the hon. Gentleman was so brief.
Fair and open admission arrangements help children to access good-quality schools, while unfair and unclear admission arrangements can increase social segregation and limit parents’ choice of school. Clause 41 therefore builds on the rules in the School Standards and Framework Act to ensure that admission arrangements that are approved as part of a proposal to open a new school or expand a successful or popular school should remain in place for a fixed period. That will also ensure that schools adjudicator determinations on objections to admission arrangements are binding for a fixed period.
As hon. Members will see, the draft regulations that we circulated would prevent further changes in admission arrangements in the two school years following the year in which a change was authorised to a school. That would make for a total of three years in which the arrangements were frozen, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wants to restrict that period to two years. We proposed that the freeze should be for three years, because two years is insufficient time for good practice—whether in new schools or expanding schools, or following an objection to the adjudicator—to become embedded and truly effective.
In defence of the three-year period, I should say that we made it clear in the White Paper that we intended to take the route set out in the Bill. If the White Paper really is the hon. Gentleman’s bible, as he says it is, he will want to support this particular element of it. As it is, his amendments would change it. We should, however, stick with the intention in the White Paper.

John Hayes: The Minister has been persuasive. The hour is late, and dinner awaits. [Hon. Members: “Where?”] I shall not titillate members of the Committee by describing my dining details. You know them, Mr. Chope, and you are holding them like a secret close to your heart. Suffice it to say that this was a probing amendment. I simply say that the Minister might want to look at the issue again because the admissions situation will be dynamic, particularly for the new and expanding schools that she described, and schools might need to react to changing circumstances with appropriate vigour. That is why we have probed the issue and why we continue to think that the matter could be considered. However, on the basis of the Minister’s persuasive remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Objections to admission arrangements

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where an objection is made under subsection (2), the person making the objection to the adjudicator (the “objector”) must provide a detailed meritorious case for his decision, setting out why the specific admission arrangement to which he objects damages his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools within the authority area, and providing substantive evidence to support his case.
(2B) If the objector fails to provide the detailed meritorious case and evidence required in subsection (2A) the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.
(2C) If, in the reasonable opinion of the adjudicator an objection by an objector is unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious, he shall not hear the objection.
(2D) Where an objector has made objection on the same grounds at any time in the previous three years, the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.”.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 216, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (2) leave out paragraph (c).'.
Amendment No. 52, in clause 42, page 31, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 54, in clause 42, page 31, line 31, leave out from ‘made' to end of line 32.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 42, page 31, line 39, leave out from ‘arrangements' to ‘and' in line 40.
Amendment No. 53, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert
‘, provided those modifications are in line with the character and ethos of the school.'.
Amendment No. 57, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert—
‘(5D) Where the adjudicator makes a decision in relation to the admission arrangements of an admission authority, the admission authority may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(5E) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to appeals under this section, including provision—
(a) as to the time by which an appeal is to be made,
(b) as to the manner in which an appeal is to be made,
(c) as to the procedure to be followed in connection with an appeal, and
(d) as to the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow an appeal.'.
Amendment No. 93, in clause 42, page 32, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
Clause stand part.
New clause 11—Abolition of adjudicator—
‘(1) The office of adjudicator is hereby abolished.
(2) Section 90 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

John Hayes: We are making great progress and we now turn to clause 42 in that spirit. The clause allows anyone to make an objection to a proposed admissions system, regardless of their evidence or reasons for doing so. There is at least a possibility of vexatious objections that are motivated by some personal grudge, not by the school’s best interests. Our proposals suggest that safeguards should be put in place to protect what might already be a complicated and bureaucratic process. As I said on amendments tothe previous clause, the White Paper was clear about the three-year period, but it was just as clear about the need to avoid the process becoming bureaucratic and complex.
Under our proposals, any objector would be expected to lodge a proper case, which should ensure that the admissions process is undergone easily. Amendment No. 92 goes into detail about how an objection might be handled, providing a meritorious and detailed case for an objector’s decision, setting out why the specific arrangements to which he objects damages his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools in the local authority area, and providing substantive evidence to support his case. The amendment goes on to state that an adjudicator should not hear an objection that cannot meet that test. It mentions specifically
“unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious”
objections.
That is not an unreasonable addition to the Bill, given that there may be those who lodge objections without good or just cause. For those reasons, the amendments are helpful. They are probing amendments because, generally speaking, as you know, Mr. Chope, we support the Bill and are anxious to ease its passage through the Committee and the House, although that will not always be easy.
I read at the weekend that a number of people on the Government Benches who oppose the Bill, perhaps having heard the contributions made by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and other members of the Committee, are growing in number. I gather that the hon. Member for Bury, North is whipping up discontent among his hon. Friends. I am anxious not to have any truck with that; as I have said before, we want to help the Minister on her journey towards enlightenment, which is why we tabled these simple amendments.

David Chaytor: I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 216. Itis an important amendment, the effect of which would be to remove fromthe Secretary of State the power to make regulations relating toparents’ powers to object to any aspect of the proposedadmissionarrangements.
Theintroductory section 7 of the published skeletal code is entitled“Enforcing the code”. It makes the point that the localauthority, other local schools and the admission forum have importantpowers to refer any school to the adjudicator when it fails to complywith the mandatory provisions. That is true, but the section does notrefer to the powers of parents to refer individual schools’practices to the adjudicator. Parents do have powers, but they are severely prescribed by the Secretary ofState’s powers to make regulations as to the issues on whichparents can refer problems tothe adjudicator.
There are several anomalies:for example, under the existing regulations laid down by the Secretaryof State, parents cannot refer the question of 10 per cent. selectionby aptitude to the adjudicator. However, they can refer to theadjudicator the case of a school that deliberately takes fewer pupilsthan the proposed admissions limit. To all intents and purposes theeffect of this on parents in the immediate catchment area will be thesame, but because of the regulations that the Secretary of State haslaid to prescribe these powers to parents, only one problem could bereferred by a group of parents.
It is an argument that weadvanced on earlier clauses. If we are serious about giving parents agreater voice in the development of our education system andencouraging them to challenge more frequently and more assertively thepractices of individual schools that are designed to prevent fairaccess, it seems only logical that parents should have exactly the samepowers to refer issues to the adjudicator as are now held by individualadmissions authorities, local authorities and the admissionforum.

Sarah Teather: The Liberal Democrats are very sympathetic to thepoints raised by the hon. Member for Bury, North and we look forward tothe Minister’sreply.

Jacqui Smith: To ensure a fair admissions system that gives everychild, whatever their background, an equal chance to succeed, it iscrucial that we have a robust and independent system for consideringobjections to admission arrangements and for ensuring that they arefair. That, of course, is what the clausecovers.
Amendment No.92, which was moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and TheDeepings, would place conditions on the circumstances in whichobjections could be made to the schools adjudicator or the NationalAssembly for Wales. I agree with him, of course, that we should notwant frivolous or vexatious objections to be considered. There has beenno evidence of that happening since 1999 when the first objections weremade. The question whether an objection has merit should be for theschools adjudicator, who is best placed to consider all theinformation. We should not try to fetter the discretion of theadjudicator or the Assembly as the amendment proposes.
It is also important that theschools adjudicator should have flexibility to make decisions based onlocal circumstances and the merits of individual cases. The amendmentwould substantially reduce flexibility and change the balance of thesystem to favour the interests of schools rather than families andchildren. For those reasons I opposeit.
Amendment No. 216,which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, wouldremove the power to prescribe in regulations the type of objection that parentscould make to the adjudicator. I strongly agree with him that parentsmust be able to complain about admission arrangements that theyconsider unfair, but we consider that to avoid numerous unjustified,repeated and costly referrals, formal objections by parents should berestricted to the use of pre-existing partial selection or, as my hon.Friend outlined, cases in which the admission number for a particularage group is lower than the number indicated, as happens now. However,parents can ask their local authorities to object on other grounds toadmissions arrangements and in addition parents are, as we discussedearlier, represented on admission forums by parent governor representatives; those forums will be able toobject to arrangements in future.
I hope that my hon.Friend will agree that, as has been ably demonstrated in today’sdebates, the process of admissions can, particularly for individualparents, be a quite worrying and tense time. I am sure that he wouldnot want any parent, instead of going through the existing process ofapplication and, if unsuccessful, appeal, to be in the position oftaking objections about a school’s admissions arrangements totheadjudicator.
Debateadjourned.—[Mr.Shaw.]

Adjournedaccordingly at twelve minutes to Ten o’clock, till Tuesday 9 Mayat half-past Teno’clock.